Heritage versus History

I've enjoyed watching the TV programme Ian Hislop's Olden Days on BBC 2 over the past few weeks.  The programme looks at the ways in which the British have looked back to reimagine previous periods of our history in an idealised way, as a means of coping with contemporary concerns.

This week's episode was about the Victorians' obsession with the Middle Ages.  At a time of incredible social, economic and technological change, the Victorians looked back with fondness to the, supposed, more static social structure and gentler rhythms of the Middle Ages.  This nostalgia was visually reflected in the Gothic revival in architecture, in the arts and crafts movement, led by William Morris, and in the paintings produced by the Pre-Raphaelites.

Since watching this episode, I've been considering which era of British history we currently idealise. One can see a certain fondness for the post-war decades reflected in the current interest with all things 'vintage' and in the resurgence of vinyl records, while the middle class obsession with 'artisan' produce and 'authenticity' betray a 'nostalgia' for the diverse crafts that flourished in a less technological society.  However, these nostalgic traits do not focus on a specific period of British history. 

I have come to the conclusion that it is our idealised view of history itself that characterises this age.  Our current obsession with Heritage over History is the touchstone of this view. Whereas History objectively studies the past to identify and understand the operation of significant processes, such as those leading to the industrial revolution and the emergence of a democratic society, Heritage is largely concerned with the exterior appearance of the past, as seen in buildings and artefacts such as castles, stately homes and steam engines. In this sense, History is concerned with process, whereas Heritage is concerned with product. Historians obviously study buildings and artefacts, but are interested in the contributions that these remains make to a deeper interrogation of the past.




Heritage has in many ways come to dominate and determine our collective national experience of the past, through visits to castles, stately homes, museums and other cultural sites in Britain.  Whilst such visits can act as a catalyst to spur people to learn more about the past, they often just represent a day out at the weekend or on a bank holiday.  This is fine in itself, but we need to investigate the deeper implications of our obsession with Heritage.  One of these is that people will not get a rounded picture of the past.  For instance, a visit to a stately home might provide lots of information about the aristocrats who lived there, but could offer very little insight into the complex lives of the ordinary people who worked there.  This might seem like nit picking, but I think we have a responsibility to ensure that people have access to balanced information about the past, especially as the current Government seems determined to reduce school History to a study of 'key' dates and famous figures from the past.  Another concern is the way in which Heritage is now closely linked with consumerism, threatening the veracity of the Heritage experience.  This is seen very clearly in the marketing of Heritage attractions such as the Beamish Museum in Northumberland, whose entrance charges automatically exclude certain sectors of society from gaining admission.  In  this way, Heritage becomes part of the consumer society, so that paying an entrance fee to visit a castle becomes similar to other retail transactions.  The implication of this is that Heritage providers will attempt to make the visit as entertaining as possible, thereby possibly diluting the educational part of the experience even more.  This process can ultimately lead to Heritage sites becoming branded, like products.





It is hardly surprising that Heritage has come to symbolise our national view of the past, as this subjective approach fits very well into a post-modern perspective, where multiple perspectives are accorded equal value and objective truth is seen as an unfashionable hangover from the past.  Maybe we should exercise a more questioning and discerning approach to the Heritage sites which we visit, in order to ensure that the visit has more than simple entertainment value and offers us some insight into the nuances of our shared past.